i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
UD,
I see you are making more unjustified leaps. In fact, they did start speaking against him as we see in verses 41-42, but he did not make the direct claim of the possession of something only granted by God as in 8:58, and further the context leading up this event was not present in 6. Hence they did not try and stone him.
Mondo
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
UD,
Your entire line of reasoning is faulty, for it assumes that Jesus is answering something he isn't in verse 58. The question you claim they are answering is found in verse 53, while the question being answered is found in verse 57. It deals with age and existence, not identity.
I will turn your attention to the comments of the grammarian Kenneth McKay on the meaning and translation of verse 58. "The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born', if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction."
Mondo
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
I was mistaken, should have checked my commentary first. Yes, the phrase in LXX is hO WN APESTALKEN ME PROS hUMAS. But that does not change the following: EGW EIMI is an important part of the passages in the OT in which Yahweh presents himself , in various forms, I am The Being, I am your God, I am the God of Abraham, etc. The variations have "I AM" as basis, and when Jesus use this phrase, the jews attempt to stone him. Why do you think that is? Because he claimed to be someone that came from heaven? Why do none of the angels popping up around the OT receive the same treatment?
It isn't any more important than when others use the words! EIMI takes the function of a simple linking verb. How can you ever imagine that a linking verb has any special theological meaning?
The Jews didn't attempt to stone him for "I am" statements. He made plenty of them. Look at John 8:24 and 28 and tell me why they didn't attempt to stone him there. The basis for stoning is found in the full expression of verse 58, because he was claiming an existence that only God could grant for himself, and yet to them, he was not at all from God, so he was taking it on himself. He was a man, they knew who his human father was, as it was accepted.
Don`t be ridicolous. All the other "different people" never claimed to be the son of God, the Messiah, performed miracles, rode into Jerusalem on a donkey etc. It`s a matter of context. You know this, but you resort to ridicule. Good for you.
So special pleading eh? None of those other things have to do with the words EGW EIMI. Two very simple, very common words. If you want to argue for a special theological meaning, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate it.
They don`t give justification?" The fact that the Jews attempted to stone Jesus after hearing the words _I am_ shows that it suggested to them the divine name so translated in the LXX version of Ex. iii.14." -- R.V.G. Tasker, Tyndale Commentary on John (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1960).
No, they don't. That is a huge assumption, and it is without justification in the text. One did not have to claim to be God to be stoned, one only had to claim something in opposition to God. For Jesus, he was claiming an existence for himself, that he had in their eyes taken for himself, that only God could give. This type of claim was viewed as a challange to God and blasphemy.
2000 years of christianity and the overwhelming majority of past and present scholars and Bible commentators says that the form of Ex 3:14 is shared with John 8:58. You and your little Watchtower can scream and yell all you want about the lack of a predicative, but it doesn`t change a thing.Actually, it seems Trinitarian scholars are starting to turn away. For example White, in The Forgotten Trinity, admits the only way to get any type of connection one must go "through Isaiah to Exodus 3." In other words, while he still makes a connection, he admits there is not a direct link.
Further though, it is a simple matter of grammar, and grammar seems to be the thing you want to avoid, because the grammar of John 8:58 is entirely different than anything we see in Exodus 3:14, giving EIMI a completely different sense than EHYEH.
Mondo
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
I would agree that the phrasing Isaiah 43:10 and John 8:24, 28 are very similar, but in context they are entirely different references.
Psalm 90:2 (89:12) is indeed very similar, but here the Psalm gives us apo tou aiwnos, which lends to the thought of eternal, a thought lacking in John 8:58.
As for the adverb in Isaiah, keep in mind that the adverbial expression that is used in constructions such as found at John 8:58 are limited to the past, so I don't see 46:4 relating. For 46:4 specifically, the antecedent for hu seems to fall back to 45:21, "a just God and Savior." He is that one in contrast to the idols spoken of in verses 1-3, which are a burden to their followers and unable to save.
Mondo
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
Hellrider
In the mind of a greek-speaking jew or greek in the 1st or 2nd century, reading the passage in John,the meaning is perfectly clear. For someone in that age to claim that "before Abraham I am", would be to claim that he was existing from "eternity". The term "eternity" is in itself a term that we don`t think of, or speak in terms of, in the same way today as someone 2000 years ago. To have existed before Abraham, the forefather, the exalted man that made the first pact with God 2000 years before Jesus Christ, who brought the jews in as Yahwehs people, meant in the mind of a jew or greek at that time to have existed for "eternity".
Way to go with absolutely no evidence to support your case. Adam, Cain, Able, Enoch, all the angels, etc, all lived before Abraham. I have demonstrated via another text that eternity is not implicit in the syntax.
Note especially the last part of the passage. "I AM has sent you". God actually tells Moses the short-version of the title. In greek: EGW EIMI has sent you. It is not important that the passage in Exodus has the predicate HO WN (in LXXt), and this is confirmed by the majority of Bible commentators.It isn't important? LOL. In that part of the verse he doesn't even say EGW EIMI, he says hO WN has sent you. No EGW EIMI at all! As I said though, it is not used as a name or a title. It is a revelation of his person.
According to both Tasker and Morris, the of John 8:58 shares the form of the LXX of Exodus 3:14.And we will all now observe that neither one of them give any evidence for their assertion. They merely claim it, and without justification.
One more thing: The "I am what I am" and "I am"-statements from Exodus are not the only titles given to God in the OT. There are many variations on the "I am"-theme. Note especially Genesis 26,24: That night the LORD appeared to him and said, " I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
That is going to be a real problem for you, for I can pull such statements for for many different people in the Bible. If you want to argue that, then all the other "I am" statements of others must make them God too! You make me wonder where you come up with this stuff!
Your claims are bare and empty. I have demonstrated with *****grammar**** that there is no relation. Instead of dealing with any of what I say, you duck and cover, turning to authorities who say nothing about what I say, themselves not dealing with the issues. You need to either make an response to the *points I am making* and deal with the grammatically issues at play, or concede the point. It doesn't matter with me, but your games are tiring.
Mondo
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
Hellrider,
At most, eternal prior existence is a possiblity, it is by no means clear or explicit in Jesus words. For example, in one Greek writing we read egw gar eimi iwbab prin hh onomasai me ho kurios iwb. EGW EIMI is used here just as in John 8:58, only with a predicate instead of the sense "exist." Yet, nobody would argue that he was Jobab eternally because he said EGW EIMI in contrast to onomasai. So it is not necessary or even plausable that Jesus was claiming eternal preexistence. And further, "I am" is never used in the sense of a name or title.
Mondo
hi, i became inactive fifteen years ago.
there is a lot that i just don't believe.
that is why i left.
Honesty,
Carry that argument throughout the Bible and see how many trinities and dualities you can come up with. For example, the "name of our fathers, Abraham and Isaac" within Genesis 48. Two fathers, one name, so one being? It doesn't carry.
i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.
...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.
i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.
Sounds good. Only fair that I have to wait after having made you wait for so long. :)
I will see about expanding what I quote from Fekkes so that you can get a larger picture of what is being said for these texts. (I'd originally planned to only quote a few sentences...)
Mondo
hi, i became inactive fifteen years ago.
there is a lot that i just don't believe.
that is why i left.
It isn't so much that the Trniity has been kept, but if you rejected it and got caught, you could forget about much else.. often including your own life.
i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.
...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.
i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.
Leolaia,
My first post will be coming tomorrow. I'd hope to have made it by now, but I ended up getting sick, which put me further behind in what I was already behind on.
Before I do post it though, I have to ask. Have you read Fekkes' comments on "the first and the last" in Rev. 1:17-18 and 2:8? I'm rather surprised you'd use this reference in light of that.
Thanks,
Mondo
